Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Distinct long-term disease activity trajectories differentiate early on treatment with etanercept in both rheumatoid arthritis and spondylarthritis patients: a prospective cohort study

To characterize disease activity trajectories and compare long-term drug retention between rheumatoid (RA) and spondylarthritis (SpA) patients initiating tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment (etanercept). Prospective observational study of RA, axial (AxSpA) and peripheral SpA (PerSpA) patients initiating etanercept during 2004-2020. Kaplan-Meier plots were used for drug retention comparisons and multivariable Cox regression models for predictors of discontinuation. Long-term disease activity trajectories were identified by latent class growth models using DAS28-ESR or ASDAS-CRP as outcome for RA and AxSpA respectively. We assessed 711 patients (450 RA, 178 AxSpA and 83 PerSpA) with a median (IQR) follow-up of 12 (5-32) months. At 5 years, 22%, 30% and 21% of RA, AxSpA and PerSpA patients, respectively, remained on therapy. Etanercept discontinuation was independent of the diagnosis and was predicted by gender and obesity in both RA and SpA groups. Four disease activity (DA) trajectories were identified from 6th month of treatment in both RA and AxSpA. RA patients in remission-low DA groups (33.7%) were younger, had shorter disease duration, fewer comorbidities and lower baseline disease activity compared to moderate (40.6%) & high DA (25.7%) groups. In AxSpA 74% were in inactive-low DA and they were more often males, non-obese and had lower number of comorbidities compared to higher ASDAS-CRP trajectories. In RA and AxSpA patients, disease activity trajectories revealed heterogeneity of TNFi treatment responses and prognosis. Male gender, lower baseline disease activity and fewer comorbidities, characterize a favourable outcome in terms of disease burden accrual and TNFi survival.

Therapeutic advances in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most common immune mediated inflammatory diseases. People with rheumatoid arthritis present with pain, swelling, and stiffness that typically affects symmetrically distributed small and large joints. Without effective treatment, significant joint damage, disability, and work loss develop, owing to chronic inflammation of the joint lining (synovium). Over the past 25 years, the management of this condition has been revolutionized, resulting in substantially higher levels of disease remission and better long term outcomes. This improvement reflects a paradigm shift towards early and aggressive pharmacological intervention coupled with a proliferation in treatment choice, in turn related to enhanced pathobiological understanding and the advent of new drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. Following an overview of these developments from a historical perspective, and with a general audience in mind, this review focuses on newer, targeted treatments in an ever evolving landscape. The review highlights ongoing areas of debate and unmet need, including the proportion of patients with persistent, difficult-to-treat disease, despite recent advances. Also discussed are personalized, strategic approaches to individual patients, the role for imaging in clinical decision making, and the goal of sustained, drug free remission and disease prevention in the future.

Participant Engagement and Adherence to Providing Smartwatch and Patient-Reported Outcome Data: Digital Tracking of Rheumatoid Arthritis Longitudinally (DIGITAL) Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Digital health studies using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and wearables bring new challenges, including the need for participants to consistently provide trial data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to characterize the engagement, protocol adherence, and data completeness among participants with rheumatoid arthritis enrolled in the Digital Tracking of Arthritis Longitudinally (DIGITAL) study.

METHODS

Participants were invited to participate in this app-based study, which included a 14-day run-in and an 84-day main study. In the run-in period, data were collected via the ArthritisPower mobile app to increase app familiarity and identify the individuals who were motivated to participate. Successful completers of the run-in period were mailed a wearable smartwatch, and automated and manual prompts were sent to participants, reminding them to complete app input or regularly wear and synchronize devices, respectively, during the main study. Study coordinators monitored participant data and contacted participants via email, SMS text messaging, and phone to resolve adherence issues per a priori rules, in which consecutive spans of missing data triggered participant contact. Adherence to data collection during the main study period was defined as providing requested data for >70% of 84 days (daily ePRO, ≥80% daily smartwatch data) or at least 9 of 12 weeks (weekly ePRO).

RESULTS

Of the 470 participants expressing initial interest, 278 (59.1%) completed the run-in period and qualified for the main study. Over the 12-week main study period, 87.4% (243/278) of participants met the definition of adherence to protocol-specified data collection for weekly ePRO, and 57.2% (159/278) did so for daily ePRO. For smartwatch data, 81.7% (227/278) of the participants adhered to the protocol-specified data collection. In total, 52.9% (147/278) of the participants met composite adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other digital health rheumatoid arthritis studies, a short run-in period appears useful for identifying participants likely to engage in a study that collects data via a mobile app and wearables and gives participants time to acclimate to study requirements. Automated or manual prompts (ie, "It's time to sync your smartwatch") may be necessary to optimize adherence. Adherence varies by data collection type (eg, ePRO vs smartwatch data).

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/14665.

The Clinical Impact of Seropositivity on Treatment Response in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Etanercept: A Real-World Iraqi Experience

Purpose

To assess the clinical impact of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA)’s seropositivity on treatment response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with etanercept.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients with RA registered in Baghdad Teaching Hospital Registry from May 2012 to August 2019 was conducted. Patients aged ≥18 years, meeting the ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria for RA, being treated with etanercept, and followed up at ≥1 year after etanercept initiation were included; patients who received any other biologics for RA were excluded. Patients were classified as seropositive (RF- and ACPA-positive), seronegative (RF- and ACPA-negative), RF-positive, RF-negative, ACPA-positive, and ACPA-negative. The primary outcomes included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) which were measured at one year after treatment initiation.

Results

At baseline, a total of 1318 (88.3%) patients were seropositive; 1122 (75.2%) and 1054 (70.6%) patients were RF- and ACPA-positive, respectively. Baseline mean CDAI scores were significantly (P = 0.001) higher among seropositive patients compared with seronegative patients. The baseline mean DAS28 score was also significantly higher in ACPA-positive group compared with the ACPA-negative group (P = 0.021). At baseline, the number of patients who had high CDAI scores was significantly higher among the seropositive, RF-positive, and ACPA-positive groups (P = 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.002, respectively). After one year of treatment with etanercept, among seropositive versus seronegative and ACPA-positive versus ACPA-negative groups, there was a significant improvement in terms of the mean CDAI score (P = 0.004 and P = 0.017, respectively) and CDAI response (P = 0.011 and P = 0.048, respectively). At one year, the proportion of patients among the seropositive versus seronegative group who reached remission were 566 (42.9%) versus 78 (44.6%) and 642 (47.3%) versus 83 (47.4%), for CDAI and DAS28 response, respectively.

Conclusion

The results imply that seropositivity and ACPA-positivity may influence the treatment response in patients with RA, who were treated with etanercept.

Efficacy and Safety of Opinercept Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy for Drug-Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of opinercept for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients undergoing disease- modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) therapy.

Patients and methods

A total of 98 patients with active RA (17 males, 81 females; mean age 58.6±12.2 years; range, 24.3 to 85.3 years) were randomized into opinercept plus DMARDs (OD group) or placebo plus DMARDs (PD group), in a 24-week treatment period. Primary outcome was American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) at week 24. Other exploratory endpoints included ACR50, ACR70 and disease activity score-28 (DAS28) at week 12 and 24, tender/swollen joint counts, pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein level. Incidence of adverse events (AEs), vital signs and physical findings, and laboratory test results were also evaluated.

Results

Patients in OD group showed significantly higher achievement percentage of ACR20 at week 24 than the PD group (76.6% vs. 30.3%, p<0.001). The evaluation of DAS28 was significantly improved in OD patients compared to PD patients at weeks 12 and 24. Most of the occurred AEs were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to study treatments.

Conclusion

Opinercept concurrent with DMARDs was superior to DMARDs alone in slowing RA progression and ameliorating symptoms, with well- tolerated and acceptable safety profile.

Quantitative Predictive Modelling Approaches to Understanding Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Brief Review

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that is a major public health challenge. The disease is characterised by inflammation of synovial joints and cartilage erosion, which lead to chronic pain, poor life quality and, in some cases, mortality. Understanding the biological mechanisms behind the progression of the disease, as well as developing new methods for quantitative predictions of disease progression in the presence/absence of various therapies is important for the success of therapeutic approaches. The aim of this study is to review various quantitative predictive modelling approaches for understanding rheumatoid arthritis. To this end, we start by briefly discussing the biology of this disease and some current treatment approaches, as well as emphasising some of the open problems in the field. Then, we review various mathematical mechanistic models derived to address some of these open problems. We discuss models that investigate the biological mechanisms behind the progression of the disease, as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models for various drug therapies. Furthermore, we highlight models aimed at optimising the costs of the treatments while taking into consideration the evolution of the disease and potential complications.

Efficacy of EGFR plus TNF inhibition in a preclinical model of temozolomide-resistant glioblastoma

BACKGROUND

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant adult brain tumor. Temozolomide (TMZ) is the standard of care and is most effective in GBMs that lack the DNA repair protein O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT). Moreover, even initially responsive tumors develop a secondary resistance to TMZ and become untreatable. Since aberrant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling is widespread in GBM, EGFR inhibition has been tried in multiple clinical trials without success. We recently reported that inhibiting EGFR leads to increased secretion of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and activation of a survival pathway in GBM. Here, we compare the efficacy of TMZ versus EGFR plus TNF inhibition in an orthotopic mouse model of GBM.

METHODS

We use an orthotopic model to examine the efficacy of TMZ versus EGFR plus TNF inhibition in multiple subsets of GBMs, including MGMT methylated and unmethylated primary GBMs, recurrent GBMs, and GBMs rendered experimentally resistant to TMZ.

RESULTS

The efficacy of the 2 treatments was similar in MGMT methylated GBMs. However, in MGMT unmethylated GBMs, a combination of EGFR plus TNF inhibition was more effective. We demonstrate that the 2 treatment approaches target distinct and non-overlapping pathways. Thus, importantly, EGFR plus TNF inhibition remains effective in TMZ-resistant recurrent GBMs and in GBMs rendered experimentally resistant to TMZ.

CONCLUSION

EGFR inhibition combined with a blunting of the accompanying TNF-driven adaptive response could be a viable therapeutic approach in MGMT unmethylated and recurrent EGFR-expressing GBMs.

Decreased Injection Site Pain Associated with Phosphate-Free Etanercept Formulation in Rheumatoid Arthritis or Psoriatic Arthritis Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and is administered via subcutaneous injection. Injection site pain (ISP) associated with subcutaneous administration may affect compliance or hinder initiation of prescribed medications. To improve the patient experience, a new phosphate-free formulation of etanercept was evaluated for reduced ISP associated with administration.

METHODS

This phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study compared the prior formulation of etanercept to a phosphate-free formulation. Etanercept-naïve adults with RA or PsA indicated for treatment with etanercept were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive both etanercept formulations (50 mg) in one of two crossover sequences: prior formulation followed by phosphate-free formulation (sequence AB) or phosphate-free formulation followed by prior formulation (sequence BA) at visits 1 week apart. Patients self-reported ISP using a fit-for-purpose 100-mm visual analog scale within 30 s after injection. Safety outcomes included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used to assess ISP, with treatment, study period, sequence, and disease indication as fixed-effect covariates and patient-within-sequence as random effect.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients enrolled (56 sequence AB; 55 sequence BA). Mean ISP score for prior formulation was 23.1 mm and for phosphate-free formulation was 19.1 mm (mean difference - 4 mm; 95% confidence interval: - 8.0, 0.0; P = 0.048). Patients with the highest ISP scores from the prior formulation (by quartile cut points) had the largest reduction in pain with phosphate-free formulation. Injection site reactions were few in number and similar between formulations; no new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The new phosphate-free formulation of etanercept had statistically significantly lower mean pain scores than the prior formulation, with largest pain reductions observed among patients who reported highest pain with the prior formulation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02986139.

FUNDING

Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA USA.

[Etanercept in routine German clinical practice to treat rheumatoid arthritis patients : A one-year observational study on effectiveness, safety and health economics]

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of the TNF‑α inhibitor etanercept (ETA) as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is well established by randomized controlled trials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit yielded by ETA within the regular outpatient care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective non-interventional trial included patients being treated with ETA. Data concerning efficacy, safety and life quality were collected over a period of 52 weeks. Statistical evaluation was done on a solely descriptive level.

RESULTS

From 329 specialized medical centres, 4945 patients were enrolled. Of all patients, 94.4% received a co-medication for RA, additionally to their treatment with ETA. At baseline, 22.1% of all patients fulfilled the criteria for functional remission according to the Funktionsfragebogen Hannover (FFbH) questionnaire (95% CI: 21.0-23.3%); at 52 weeks, functional remission rate accounted for 41.1% (last observation carried forward [LOCF], 95% CI: 39.4-42.9%). The disease activity score (DAS) DAS28 declined from 5.4 ± 1.3 (N = 4304) to 3.3 ± 1.4 (as observed; N = 2608). EuroQol EQ-5D, a measurement of health-related life quality issues, indicated an improvement on the visual analogue scale (VAS) from 53.1 ± 21.3 mm (N = 4718) at baseline to 70.0 ± 20.5 mm (as observed; N = 3036). Generally, ETA has been tolerated well. With regard to the safety profile specified by previous studies, no meaningful deviations concerning the nature, frequency or severity of adverse events were detected.

CONCLUSION

Based on a large number of patients and in a treatment context that is representative of routine outpatient care in Germany, it was confirmed that patients with RA may benefit from a treatment with ETA.

Evidence for the Involvement of the Master Transcription Factor NF-κB in Cancer Initiation and Progression

Nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) is responsible for the regulation of a large number of genes that are involved in important physiological processes, including survival, inflammation, and immune responses. At the same time, this transcription factor can control the expression of a plethora of genes that promote tumor cell proliferation, survival, metastasis, inflammation, invasion, and angiogenesis. The aberrant activation of this transcription factor has been observed in several types of cancer and is known to contribute to aggressive tumor growth and resistance to therapeutic treatment. Although NF-κB has been identified to be a major contributor to cancer initiation and development, there is evidence revealing its role in tumor suppression. This review briefly highlights the major mechanisms of NF-κB activation, the role of NF-κB in tumor promotion and suppression, as well as a few important pharmacological strategies that have been developed to modulate NF-κB function.

Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults

BACKGROUND

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors are beneficial for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for reducing the risk of joint damage, improving physical function and improving the quality of life. This review is an update of the 2014 Cochrane Review of the treatment of RA with certolizumab pegol.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in people with RA who have not responded well to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Knowledge, reference lists of articles, clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP of WHO. The searches were updated from 2014 (date of the last search for the previous version) to 26 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared certolizumab pegol with any other agent, including placebo or methotrexate (MTX), in adults with active RA, regardless of current or prior treatment with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as MTX.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked search results, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or referral to a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials in this update, three more than previously. Twelve trials (5422 participants) included measures of benefit. We pooled 11 of them, two more than previously. Thirteen trials included information on harms, (5273 participants). The duration of follow-up varied from 12 to 52 weeks and the range of doses of certolizumab pegol varied from 50 to 400 mg given subcutaneously. In Phase III trials, the comparator was placebo plus MTX in seven trials and placebo in five. In the two Phase II trials the comparator was only placebo.The approved dose of certolizumab pegol, 200 mg every other week, produced clinically important improvements at 24 weeks for the following outcomes:- American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement (pain, function and other symptoms of RA): 25% absolute improvement (95% confidence interval (CI) 20% to 33%); number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5); risk ratio (RR) 3.80 (95% CI 2.42 to 5.95), 1445 participants, 5 studies.- The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ): -12% absolute improvement (95% CI -9% to -14%); NNTB of 8 (95% CI 7 to 11); mean difference (MD) - 0.35 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.26; 1268 participants, 4 studies) (scale 0 to 3; lower scores mean better function).- Proportion of participants achieving remission (Disease Activity Score (DAS) < 2.6) absolute improvement 10% (95% CI 8% to 16%); NNTB of 8 (95% CI 6 to 12); risk ratio (RR) 2.94 (95% CI 1.64 to 5.28), 2420 participants, six studies.- Radiological changes: erosion score (ES) absolute improvement -0.29% (95% CI -0.42% to -0.17%); NNTB of 6 (95% CI 4 to 10); MD -0.67 (95% CI -0.96 to -0.38); 714 participants, two studies (scale 0 to 230), but not a clinically important difference.-Serious adverse events (SAEs) were statistically but not clinically significantly more frequent for certolizumab pegol (200 mg every other week) with an absolute rate difference of 3% (95% CI 1% to 4%); number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 33 (95% CI 25 to 100); Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.47 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.91); 3927 participants, nine studies.There was a clinically significant increase in all withdrawals in the placebo groups (for all doses and at all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of -29% (95% CI -16% to -42%), NNTH of 3 (95% CI 2 to 6), RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.56); and there was a clinically significant increase in withdrawals due to adverse events in the certolizumab groups (for all doses and at all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of 2% (95% CI 0% to 3%); NNTH of 58 (95% CI 28 to 329); Peto OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.94) 5236 participants Twelve studies.We judged the quality of evidence to be high for ACR50, DAS remission, SAEs and withdrawals due to adverse events, and moderate for HAQ and radiological changes, due to concerns about attrition bias. For all withdrawals we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate, due to inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results and conclusions did not change from the previous review. There is a moderate to high certainty of evidence from randomised controlled trials that certolizumab pegol, alone or combined with methotrexate, is beneficial in the treatment of RA for improved ACR50 and health-related quality of life, an increased chance of remission of RA, and reduced joint damage as seen on x-ray. Fewer people stopped taking their treatment, but most of these who did stopped due to serious adverse events. Adverse events were more frequent with active treatment. We found a clinically but not statistically significant risk of serious adverse events.

Total glucosides of paeony for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Total glucosides of paeony (TGP) is commonly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in China. However, clinical practice hasn't been well informed by evidence from appropriately conducted systematic reviews. This PRISMA-compliant systematic review aims at examining the effectiveness and safety of TGP for RA.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TGP with placebo, no treatment, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for patients with RA were retrieved by searching seven databases. Primary outcomes included disease improvement and disease remission. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects, pain, health-related quality of life, C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Data extraction and analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane standards. We assessed risk of bias for each included studies and quality of evidence on pre-specified outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight studies enrolling 1209 patients with active RA were included in this systematic review. On the basis of traditional DMARD(s), TGP might be beneficial for patients with RA in improvement of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response rate, ACR 50 response rate, ACR70 response rate, and in reduction of adverse effects, compared with no treatment. The overall methodological quality of included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Current trials suggested potential benefits of TGP for RA on the basis of traditional DMARD(s). Therefore, TGP may be a good choice for RA as an adjuvant therapy. However, considering the limited methodological quality and strength of evidence, high-quality RCTs are warranted to support the use of TGP for RA.

Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Direct Comparative Effectiveness Among 3 Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Biologics in a Real-Life Cohort of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

This study aimed to compare the clinical response at 36 months and evaluate the adverse events in a cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab.

Methods

An observational retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients older than 18 years with active rheumatoid arthritis, for which the physician had initiated a treatment scheme with etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab, were included in the study. The follow-up was conducted through at least trimestral evaluations during the course of 36 months. Outcomes evaluated included Disease Activity Score 28, level of disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and degree of disability.

Results

Three hundred seven subjects were included in the cohort (108 adalimumab, 107 infliximab, and 92 etanercept). The median Disease Activity Score 28 at the onset was 4.1 and 2.39 at month 36. There were no differences among the 3 medications (P = 0.51). The remission rate was of 7.4 per 100 people per month (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.6–8.3) without differences between groups. The initial Health Assessment Questionnaire median was 1.75 and 0.25 at 36 months. No differences per medicine were found (P = 0.54). The most common adverse effect was dermatitis. Eighteen cases of serious adverse effects occurred, including 11 cases of serious infectious events. The adverse events rates were as follows: infliximab, 24 per 100 people per year (95% CI, 19–29); adalimumab, 22 per 100 people per year (95% CI, 18–27); and etanercept, 12 per 100 people per year (95% CI, 8–16).

Conclusions

Etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab are 3 effective therapeutic anti–tumor necrosis factor alternatives to reduce the level of severity and the degree of disability generated by rheumatoid arthritis. Etanercept presented a rate of adverse events lower than those for infliximab and adalimumab.

Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?

BACKGROUND

When conducting systematic reviews, it is essential to perform a comprehensive literature search to identify all published studies relevant to the specific research question. The Cochrane Collaborations Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidelines state that searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL should be considered mandatory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MECIR recommendations to use MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined, and examine the yield of using these to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the area of musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

Data sources were systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group, including at least five RCTs, reporting a search history, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and adding reference- and hand-searching. Additional databases were deemed eligible if they indexed RCTs, were in English and used in more than three of the systematic reviews. Relative recall was calculated as the number of studies identified by the literature search divided by the number of eligible studies i.e. included studies in the individual systematic reviews. Finally, cumulative median recall was calculated for MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined followed by the databases yielding additional studies.

RESULTS

Deemed eligible was twenty-three systematic reviews and the databases included other than MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was AMED, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, MANTIS, OT-Seeker, PEDro, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, SportDISCUS and Web of Science. Cumulative median recall for combined searching in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was 88.9% and increased to 90.9% when adding 10 additional databases.

CONCLUSION

Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was not sufficient for identifying all effect studies on musculoskeletal disorders, but additional ten databases did only increase the median recall by 2%. It is possible that searching databases is not sufficient to identify all relevant references, and that reviewers must rely upon additional sources in their literature search. However further research is needed.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Total glucosides of paeony for rheumatoid arthritis: a protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Total glucosides of paeony (TGP) is a natural plant extract, which is widely used in China for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Many relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of TGP for RA are available, but they have not been systematically reviewed. This systematic review aims to examine the effectiveness and safety of TGP in patients with RA.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

We will search for RCTs of TGP in the treatment of RA, performed up until February 2016, in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and four Chinese databases (Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database and Chinese Scientific Journal Database). Trial registers and reference lists of retrieved articles will also be searched to identify potential articles. RCTs comparing TGP with placebo, no treatment, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with RA will be retrieved. The primary outcomes will be disease improvement and disease remission. The secondary outcomes will be surrogate outcomes, symptoms, adverse effects, and quality of life. Two reviewers will independently extract data on participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, etc. The methodological quality of each included study will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the strength of evidence on prespecified outcomes will be assessed in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Review Manager 5.3 software will be used for data analyses. Meta-analyses will be performed if the data are sufficiently homogeneous, both statistically and clinically. Possible publication bias will also be checked using funnel plots once the number of included studies is sufficient.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required, as this study will not involve patients. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication, to inform both clinical practice and further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015026345.

Anti-inflammatory effects of recombinant human PDCD5 (rhPDCD5) in a rat collagen-induced model of arthritis

Programmed cell death 5 (PDCD5) was first identified as a gene upregulated in cells undergoing apoptosis. We recently demonstrated the inhibitory effect of PDCD5 on experimentally induced autoimmune encephalomyelitis. In this study, we investigated the anti-inflammatory effects of recombinant human PDCD5 (rhPDCD5) in a rat collagen-induced arthritis (CIA) model. We find that vaccination of collagen II (CII) induced CIA rats with rhPDCD5 significantly delayed the occurrence and reduced the severity of CIA rats. rhPDCD5 also restored the loss of Foxp3⁺ regulatory T (Treg) cells and decreased the population of Th1 and Th17 in CIA rats. Simultaneously, rhPDCD5 treatment suppressed the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin (IL)-6, IL-17A, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and interferon gamma (IFN-γ)) and increased the secretion of anti-inflammatory cytokines (transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1) and IL-10) in CIA rats. In addition, rhPDCD5 inhibited the ability of CII to induce proliferation of splenocytes and lymph node cells (LNCs) and promoted the CII-activated CD4⁺ cell apoptosis. These results of rhPDCD5-treated CIA rats were similar with those of recombinant human TNF-α receptor IgG Fc (rhTNFR:Fc). Thus, to our knowledge, we provide the first evidence that rhPDCD5 may be an efficient approach to diminishing exacerbated immune responses in CIA, indicating its therapeutic potential in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases.

Antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects of Caryocar coriaceum Wittm fruit pulp fixed ethyl acetate extract on zymosan-induced arthritis in rats

The ethyl acetate extract from the fruit pulp of Caryocar coriaceum Wittm (Caryocaraceae), popularly known as pequi, has wide applications in popular medicine. Preclinical tests have demonstrated the therapeutic properties of the oil. We investigated the antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects of Pequi C. coriaceum Wittm ethyl acetate extract (PCCO) on zymosan-induced arthritis in rat knee joint. The animals were pretreated with PCCO for 7 consecutive days or with a single dose. Paw elevation time (PET), leukocyte infiltration, myeloperoxidase activity (MPO) and cytokine levels were assessed 4h after zymosan injection. Synovial tissue was harvested for immunohistochemical analysis, edema and vascular permeability. We observed a significant decrease in PET with PCCO pretreatment. PCCO showed a significant reduction of leukocyte migration and a decrease in MPO. Decreases were observed in cytokine release in the synovial fluid and TNF-α and cyclooxygenase-1 immunostaining in synovial tissue. Edema was inhibited by treatment with all doses of PCCO. The data suggest that PCCO exerts antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects on arthritis in rats.

Itolizumab in combination with methotrexate modulates active rheumatoid arthritis: safety and efficacy from a phase 2, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, dose-ranging study

The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of itolizumab with methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who had inadequate response to methotrexate. In this open-label, phase 2 study, 70 patients fulfilling American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and negative for latent tuberculosis were randomized to four arms: 0.2, 0.4, or 0.8 mg/kg itolizumab weekly combined with oral methotrexate, and methotrexate alone (2:2:2:1). Patients were treated for 12 weeks, followed by 12 weeks of methotrexate alone during follow-up. Twelve weeks of itolizumab therapy was well tolerated. Forty-four patients reported adverse events (AEs); except for six severe AEs, all others were mild or moderate. Infusion-related reactions mainly occurred after the first infusion, and none were reported after the 11th infusion. No serum anti-itolizumab antibodies were detected. In the full analysis set, all itolizumab doses showed evidence of efficacy. At 12 weeks, 50 % of the patients achieved ACR20, and 58.3 % moderate or good 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS-28) response; at week 24, these responses were seen in 22 and 31 patients. Significant improvements were seen in Short Form-36 Health Survey and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index scores. Overall, itolizumab in combination with methotrexate was well tolerated and efficacious in RA for 12 weeks, with efficacy persisting for the entire 24-week evaluation period. (Clinical Trial Registry of India, http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php , CTRI/2008/091/000295).

Phagocytosed Clofazimine Biocrystals Can Modulate Innate Immune Signaling by Inhibiting TNFα and Boosting IL-1RA Secretion

Clofazimine (CFZ) is an FDA-approved leprostatic and anti-inflammatory drug that massively accumulates in macrophages, forming insoluble, intracellular crystal-like drug inclusions (CLDIs) during long-term oral dosing. Interestingly, when added to cells in vitro, soluble CFZ is cytotoxic because it depolarizes mitochondria and induces apoptosis. Accordingly, we hypothesized that, in vivo, macrophages detoxify CFZ by sequestering it in CLDIs. To test this hypothesis, CLDIs of CFZ-treated mice were biochemically isolated and then incubated with macrophages in vitro. The cell biological effects of phagocytosed CLDIs were compared to those of soluble CFZ. Unlike soluble CFZ, phagocytosis of CLDIs did not lead to mitochondrial destabilization or apoptosis. Rather, CLDIs altered immune signaling response pathways downstream of Toll-like receptor (TLR) ligation, leading to enhanced interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA) production, dampened NF-κB activation and tissue necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) production, and ultimately decreased TLR expression levels. In aggregate, our results constitute evidence that macrophages detoxify soluble CFZ by sequestering it in a biocompatible, insoluble form. The altered cellular response to TLR ligation suggests that CLDI formation may also underlie CFZ's anti-inflammatory activity.

Biologic monotherapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Biologics, possibly in combination with a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) - preferably methotrexate (MTX), are used in accordance with the recommendations of the international rheumatological societies. However, in clinical practice, this recommendation is often problematic, as many rheumatologists know from personal experience. The quality of life of the patient is affected mainly by drug-induced intolerances (eg, MTX). Thus, the acceptance of the patient to treatment is often so inadequate that a discontinuation of the drug is necessary. In daily practice, approximately 30% of patients with biological therapy receive no concomitant DMARD according to the register data.

Etanercept-associated transient bone marrow aplasia: a review of the literature and pathogenetic mechanisms

A patient with rheumatoid arthritis presented with increasing fatigue, fever, gingival bleeding, and petechial rash. Her symptoms started 1 week after the first injection of etanercept (Enbrel). Her only other medications (methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine) had been unchanged for years. Tests revealed severe pancytopenia and bone marrow aplasia. She recovered with supportive treatment within 12 days. The literature on serious blood dyscrasias associated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy is reviewed, an intriguing postulated mechanism is discussed, and selective patient monitoring is recommended.

Association between anti-TNF therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is an important and pleiotropic cytokine which is also involved in the pathogenesis of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and RA treated with anti-TNF agents with a subsequent increase in hypertension risk is also observed in clinical trials. However, it is confusing that to what extent treatment with anti-TNF agents for RA might be associated with increasing risk of hypertension. The aim of this study was to investigate the overall incidence and risk of hypertension in RA patients who receive anti-TNF agents. The databases of Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registration Web site were searched for relevant trials. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the overall incidence, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) by using either random-effects or fixed-effect models according to the heterogeneity of the included studies. A total of 6321 subjects with RA from 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of hypertension associated with anti-TNF agent was 3.25% (95% CI: 1.51%-6.89%). The use of anti-TNF agent significantly increased the risk of developing hypertension (OR = 1.8896, 95% CI: 1.35-2.65). Sensitivity analysis showed that the OR between anti-TNF therapy and controls is not significantly influenced by omitting any single study. No evidence of publication bias was observed. Anti-TNF therapy is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing hypertension in patients with RA. Physicians should be aware of this risk and provide continuing monitoring in patients receiving these therapies.

Sociodemographic factors associated with functional disability in outpatients with rheumatoid arthritis in Southwest China

With the rising number of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there is a limited understanding about sociodemographic factors that influence functional disability in Chinese patients. In order to provide more targeted interventions to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with RA, we conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the level and influencing factors of functional disability. Convenient samples were collected in outpatients with RA from a rheumatological center in southwest China from September to December 2013. Data were collected by printed questionnaires, and functional disability was measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). The results showed that 58.48 % of 607 outpatients had functional disability. Patients from rural residents, with lower household income and lower education level, were significantly associated with worse functional disability. Multivariate regression findings showed that pain, age, disease duration, total cost for treatment, and frequency of hospitalization were positively associated with functional disability. Meanwhile, subjective and available social support was the protective predictors for functional disability. The results suggested that systematic intervention and therapies should be provided as early as possible. Patients and health care providers should promote the awareness of the importance of accessible health education in early intervention of RA. Besides, pain management and social support are encouraged to postpone the process of disability of patients and improve the HRQoL. Lastly, but not least, prevention and intervention of RA should be incorporated into public health education.

Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rituximab is a selective, B-cell depleting, biologic agent for treating refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeted against CD 20 that is promoted as therapy for patients who fail to respond to other biologics. There is evidence to suggest that rituximab is effective and well tolerated when used in combination with methotrexate for RA.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of rituximab for the treatment of RA.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a search (until January 2014) in electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science), clinical trials registries, and websites of regulatory agencies. Reference lists from comprehensive reviews were also screened.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled trials comparing treatment with rituximab as monotherapy or in combination with any disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (traditional or biologic) versus placebo or other DMARD (traditional or biologic) in adult patients with active RA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and abstracted data from each study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies with 2720 patients. For six studies selection bias could not be evaluated and two studies were considered to have low risk of bias. The level of evidence ranged from low to high, but was rated as moderate for most outcomes. We have prioritised reporting of rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate since this is the approved dose and most commonly used combination. We also reported data on other combinations and doses as supplementary information in the results section of the review.American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rates were statistically significantly improved with rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate compared with methotrexate alone at 24 to 104 weeks. The RR for achieving an ACR 50 at 24 weeks was 3.3 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.6); 29% of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate achieved the ACR 50 compared to 9% of controls. The absolute treatment benefit (ATB) was 21% (95% CI 16% to 25%) with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 9).At 52 weeks, the RR for achieving clinical remission (Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28 joints < 2.6) with rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate compared with methotrexate monotherapy was 2.4 (95% CI 1.7 to 3.5); 22% of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate achieved clinical remission compared to 11% of controls. The ATB was 11% (95% CI 2% to 20%) with a NNT of 7 (95% CI 4 to 13).At 24 weeks, the RR for achieving a clinically meaningful improvement (CMI) in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (> 0.22) for patients receiving rituximab combined with methotrexate compared to patients on methotrexate alone was 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1). The ATB was 24% (95% CI 12% to 36%) with an NNT of 5 (95% CI 3 to 13). At 104 weeks, the RR for achieving a CMI in HAQ (> 0.22) was 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6). The ATB was 24% (95% CI 16% to 31%) with a NNT of 5 (95% CI 3 to 7).At 24 weeks, the RR for preventing radiographic progression in patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate was 1.2 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.4) compared to methotrexate alone; 70% of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate had no radiographic progression compared to 59% of controls. The ATB was 11% (95% CI 2% to 19%) and the NNT was 10 (95% CI 5 to 57). Similar benefits were observed at 52 to 56 weeks and 104 weeks.Statistically significantly more patients achieved a CMI on the physical and mental components of the quality of life, measured by the Short Form (SF)-36, in the rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate-treated group compared with methotrexate alone at 24 to 52 weeks (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.4; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 8 and RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.9; NNT 8, 95% CI 5 to 19, respectively); 34 and 13 more patients out of 100 showed an improvement in the physical component of the quality of life measure compared to methotrexate alone (95% CI 5% to 84%; 95% CI 7% to 8%, respectively).There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in the rates of withdrawals because of adverse events or for other reasons (that is, withdrawal of consent, violation, administrative, failure to return) in either group. However, statistically significantly more people receiving the control drug withdrew from the study compared to those receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate at all times (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.50; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75, respectively). At 104 weeks, 37% withdrew from the control group and 20% withdrew from the rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate group. The absolute risk difference (ARD) was -20% (95% CI -34% to -5%) with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 7 (95% CI 5 to 11).A greater proportion of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate developed adverse events after their first infusion compared to those receiving methotrexate monotherapy and placebo infusions (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9); 26% of those taking rituximab plus methotrexate reported more events associated with their first infusion compared to 16% of those on the control regimen with an ARD of 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%) and a NNH of 11 (95% CI 21 to 8). However, no statistically significant differences were noted in the rates of serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from eight studies suggests that rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate is significantly more efficacious than methotrexate alone for improving the symptoms of RA and preventing disease progression.

Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults

BACKGROUND

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors are beneficial for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in terms of reducing the risk of joint damage, improving physical function and improving quality of life. This Cochrane review is an update of a review of the treatment of RA with certolizumab pegol that was first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of certolizumab pegol (CDP870) in patients with RA who have not responded well to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, TOXLINE, Web of Knowledge; websites of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA); reference lists of articles; and searched http/clinicaltrials.gov. The searches were updated from 2009 (date of last search for the original review) to 5 June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared certolizumab pegol with any other agent including placebo or methotrexate (MTX) in adult patients with active RA despite current or prior treatment with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as MTX.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results, trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or referral to a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials were included in this update. Ten (4324 patients) were included in the pooled analysis for benefits, five more than previously, and 10 (3711 patients) in the pooled analysis for harms, four more trials (1930 patients) than previously. The duration of follow-up varied from 12 to 52 weeks and the range of doses of certolizumab pegol varied from 50 to 400 mg given subcutaneously (sc). In phase III trials, the control was placebo plus MTX in five trials and placebo in four trials. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed as low but there may have been a risk of attrition bias.Statistically significant improvements were observed at 24 weeks with the approved dose of 200 mg certolizumab pegol every other week, in 1) American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement: 27% absolute improvement (95% CI 20% to 33%), NNT of 4 (95% CI 3 to 8), risk ratio (RR) 3.80 (95% CI 2.42 to 5.95); 2) the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ): -12% absolute improvement (95% CI -9% to -14%), NNT of 6 (95% CI 5 to 8), mean difference (MD) - 0.35 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.26) (scale 0 to 3); 3) Disease Activity Score (DAS) remission improvement: absolute improvement 11% (95% CI 8% to 15%), NNT of 9 (95% CI 4 to 20), RR 8.47 (95% CI 4.15-17.28); and 4) radiological changes: erosion score (ES) absolute improvement -0.29% (95% CI -0.42% to -0.17%), NNT of 6 (95% CI 4 to 10), MD -0.67 (95% CI -0.96 to -0.38) (scale 0 to 230). Serious adverse events were statistically significantly more frequent for certolizumab pegol (200 mg every other week) with an absolute rate difference of 4% (95% CI 2% to 6%), NNTH of 32 (95% CI 17 to 88), Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.77 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.46). There was a statistically significant increase in all withdrawals in the placebo groups (for all doses and all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of -34% (95% CI -18% to -50%), NNTH of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5), NNTH of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5), RR 0.42 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.50); and there was a statistically significant increase in all withdrawals due to adverse events in the certolizumab groups (for all doses and all follow-up) with an absolute rate difference of 2% (95% CI 1% to 3%), NNTH of 55 (95% CI 27 to 238), Peto OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.37).The risk of bias was low and the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate because of high rates of dropouts (> 20%) in most of the trials. We did not find any problems with inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision or publication bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results and conclusions did not change from the previous review. There is moderate-level evidence from randomised controlled trials that certolizumab pegol alone or combined with methotrexate is beneficial in the treatment of RA. Adverse events were more frequent with active treatment. We found a potential risk of serious adverse events.

Therapeutic targeting of the inflammome

Inflammatory responses can vary depending on a myriad of factors including: (1) the initiating stimulus or trigger, (2) the cell types involved in the response, and (3) the specific effector cytokine-chemokine milieus produced. The compilation of these and other factors in a given mechanistic context is sometimes referred to as the "inflammome". Humans and other higher-order mammals have evolved (over time) several discrete inflammomes to counter the effects of pathogens. However, when these inflammomes are induced inappropriately, they drive the development of chronic inflammatory diseases. The vast majority of biological anti-inflammatory treatments currently being developed are focused on the post hoc inhibition of downstream effectors by anti-cytokine monoclonal antibodies and receptor antagonists. This prevailing "end-point treatment" has even directed a new disease classification paradigm, namely a cytokine-based disease classification, as opposed to a traditional diagnosis based on a particular tissue or organ system dysfunction. Although this approach has a number of advantages, it omits the processes that led to the generation of the inflammatory effectors in the first place. In this review, we will expand the cytokine-based disease taxonomy into an inflammome-based taxonomy that includes interventions that subvert a priori cytokine development and can complement post hoc inhibition.

Co-opting biology to deliver drugs

The goal of drug delivery is to improve the safety and therapeutic efficacy of drugs. This review focuses on delivery platforms that are either derived from endogenous pathways, long-circulating biomolecules and cells or that piggyback onto long-circulating biomolecules and cells. The first class of such platforms is protein-based delivery systems--albumin, transferrin, and fusion to the Fc domain of antibodies--that have a long-circulation half-life and are designed to transport different molecules. The second class is lipid-based delivery systems-lipoproteins and exosomes-that are naturally occurring circulating lipid particles. The third class is cell-based delivery systems--erythrocytes, macrophages, and platelets--that have evolved, for reasons central to their function, to exhibit a long life-time in the body. The last class is small molecule-based delivery systems that include folic acid. This article reviews the biology of these systems, their application in drug delivery, and the promises and limitations of these endogenous systems for drug delivery.

Optimal dose of etanercept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Etanercept (ETN) is one of a number of biological therapies targeting the proinflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor-alpha that have demonstrated efficacy in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). As experience has grown, a number of different treatment strategies have been investigated to ascertain the optimal conditions for use of ETN in RA and maximize the clinical gains from therapy. These have included the use of higher- and lower-dose treatment regimens, ETN as a monotherapy or in combination with other nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, the use of ETN in very early clinical disease, and intraarticular ETN administration for resistant synovitis. Recent trials have focused on phased dose reduction or withdrawal of ETN in patients achieving low disease activity states or clinical remission. This review summarizes existing data regarding the optimal timing of ETN initiation and dosing regimens and also evaluates more recent evidence regarding dose-reduction strategies that offer the possibility of biologic-free remission in RA.

New targets for mucosal healing and therapy in inflammatory bowel diseases

Healing of the inflamed mucosa (mucosal healing) is an emerging new goal for therapy and predicts clinical remission and resection-free survival in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). The era of antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) antibody therapy was a remarkable progress in IBD therapy and anti-TNF agents led to mucosal healing in a subgroup of IBD patients; however, many patients do not respond to anti-TNF treatment highlighting the relevance of finding new targets for therapy of IBD. In particular, current studies are addressing the role of other anticytokine agents including antibodies against interleukin (IL)-6R, IL-13, and IL-12/IL-23 as well as new anti-inflammatory concepts (regulatory T cell therapy, Smad7 antisense, Jak inhibition, Toll-like receptor 9 stimulation, worm eggs). In addition, blockade of T-cell homing via the integrins α4β7 and the addressin mucosal vascular addressin cell adhesion molecule 1 (MAdCAM-1) emerges as a promising new approach for IBD therapy. Here, new approaches for achieving mucosal healing are discussed as well as their implications for future therapy of IBD.